If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I’ve been sitting on this idea for a little while. I just really didn’t know where to start, but “luckily” the neo-cons came to the “rescue.” I was thinking about elitism and how to handle it, when Karl Rove pathetically attempted to paint Obama as an arrogant elitist (“You know, he’s that guy at the country club…” No Karl, we don’t know people at the country club, you do.). Ha! Karl Rove, the mind behind the permanent campaign and the worst presidency in history. Maybe Karl should remember the old saying, “when you point a finger at somebody, three more point back to you.” In his attempt to brand someone as elitist, Rove demonstrated just how arrogant and elite the right wing has become. But, when you get right down to it, the people running for president are elite. What we’re really talking about these days is what kind of elite we want in power.

I’m not sure where this anti-elitist idea came from. Why do people want the “leader of the free world” to be just like the guy down the street? People understand that some people are not athletic, not everyone can sing or dance or draw. We happily chalk these up to “natural ability.” Why would politics be any different? I know, I know, politics is about the people, about ideas, and everyone can have those. Well, I’m going to lay out the truth: a lot of people are stupid. A lot of people (obviously) don’t understand the complexities of government, and even the smart ones get it wrong. It takes a special person, with a certain mix of smarts and savvy to be successful in America’s political jungle.

Here’s another secret that the GOP doesn’t want you to know: the men that founded America were highly educated, wealthy and intelligent. They weren’t the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. They were lawyers, judges, scientists, physicians, plantation owners and financial giants.AND PASTORS, AND MINISTERS. Many were known beyond their communities, a rare feat in that time. They were elite. Or, to put it another way, do you really think that the average person could write and lead the greatest experiment in individual freedom and self-determination in history? I thought not. I certainly don’t want Larry the Cable Guy writing (or rewriting) the Constitution.

And yet, this election year, the charges of elitism are already flying. Multi-millionaires each claiming that the other is “out of touch” with the cares of the average Americans. It’s ludicrous! But, more importantly, it’s a superficial waste of time. The question shouldn’t be who is more elite, but instead, who will work for the elite and who will work for the average citizen. And, with W as our guide, it’s quite obvious that Republican policies are geared towards the wealthy. Well, “geared towards” may not be strong enough. “Specifically written for and solely benefiting the wealthy” is a better way to describe these failed policies.

I guess the question you should be asking is: What kind of elitist do you want? Do you want someone who was born into privilege, handed the best off all worlds and then married into millions? Someone who feeds of the wealth of his wife’s father? Someone who acts for the rich because they made him who he is now? Or, do you want someone who came from humble beginnings, worked his way to success, and is the epitome of the American dream? Someone continues to work for the people and continues to protect the American dream? Being elite and caring about the average American are not mutually exclusive. Let’s ensure we elect a president who believes in the dream because he is living the dream.

Isn't it funny how they always forget that Christians and specifically pastors were so involved?

ocelot (1000+ posts) Sun Jun-29-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
1. "Elitism," as used by the right wing, always has been related
Edited on Sun Jun-29-08 04:35 PM by ocelot
mainly to education, not wealth. Back in the '50s the right complained about "eggheads," meaning intellectuals. There has been a strong anti-intellectual streak in this country for decades; it's bad to be too well-educated, too well-read, because that means you're not a regular guy somebody would want to have a beer with. Bush frequently bragged about his mediocre grades, but that was OK because he's not a snooty egghead. You can talk to Bush about baseball, not wonky shit like economics or French deconstructionism because God forbid that the President would be smarter then you and make you feel not so smart. I would prefer that my President be not only smarter than me, but the smartest person in the country, but evidently not everyone likes that notion.

In the context of this particular election there is another element to the "elitism" issue, which is that it seems also to be a racist code word for "uppity." Obama went to Harvard Law School, and was even President of the Law Review, which might be OK under other circumstances (Bush went to Yale and got a Harvard MBA, after all), but Obama is also black, and now we have a black guy who is smarter and better-educated than most Americans, including most white Americans, and this makes the righties nervous. They can't actually use the word "uppity" any more, though, so they try to tag him with being "elitist." And then along comes KKKarl Rove with his dumbass remark about Obama being the suave guy who hangs around country clubs with beautiful women, drinking martinis and smoking cigarettes, like he was some sort of James Bond/Cary Grant movie character, notwithstanding that until very recently guys like Obama couldn't even get into many country clubs except as caddies or waiters, but what KKKarl is really saying is that Obama is an uppity black guy who has the nerve to think he's good enough to be the cool dude at the country club, just like a rich white person.
The brand of "elitism" the Republicans are talking about is very specific, and it has nothing to do with wealth, which they have most of anyhow.

Isn't it funny how a Republican pointing out that a black man is elitist is horrible and racist and evil; but a Democrat calling Condoleeza Rice a "house n*****" is just fine?

Last edited by MrsSmith; 06-29-2008 at 07:15 PM.

-
-
-
In actual dollars, President Obamaís $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. Itís no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

Under Obamaís own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.

Isn't it funny how they always forget that Christians and specifically pastors were so involved?

Isn't it funny how a Republican pointing out that a black man is elitist is horrible and racist and evil; but a Democrat calling Condoleeza Rice a "house n*****" is just fine?

OUCH!

And you're so right.

And just to put a plug in for my own religious background: the richest man in the colonies and the richest man to sign the Declaration was Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a Catholic from Maryland. HIs son was a Jesuit and the first Bishop and Archbishop of Baltimore.

"Someone who feeds of the wealth of his wifeís father?"
Oh, you mean John Kerry?
Seriously, when most people, myself included, refer to Obama as an elitist, we mean that he is seen as really looking down contemptuously on certain groups that he feels are inferior to him (i.e. all those bitter small- town people who cling to guns, religion, and xenohobia out of bitterness).